(OLD) Contest Unfair Infractions Here

[Ver-go-a-go-go]

Was this really worth an infraction?

A) I never done anything like this before. Yes, I did abuse it to some extent, but I only did it for a minute to screen shot them and take it off so it didn't become a problem.

Yes, it was abuse. I understand that how we deal with this exploit hasn't been clear at all; I wish I had a better answer for what we do and do not allow, but as far as I can gather so far, we've allowed certain custom banners that aren't obnoxious, don't take up a large amount of screen space, and don't mimic actual forum ranks that we officially have. This is especially true for the latter - when Kitsu recieved his infraction for first using this exploit, it's my understanding that it was because, among other things, that he was replicating banners that we use as actual ranks on this site. I have two reasons for giving this infraction to you, with one of them being exactly that - it was an obnoxiously large amount, and used actual ranks. I'll get to the second reason later, but how long you had it is somewhat irrelevant. If I'm going to penalize another user for doing this, I have to be fair in what I do and not give any exceptions.

What I did didn't seem serious enough for an infraction. Yes, I mimicked banners used on the site, and used an excessive amount of them, but I just did it for fun. I wasn't promoting the abuse of the exploit, and it was a mistake on my part. A warning could have done the same. Why did you immediately need to jump to infraction?

I do think it's funny how today's events, and use of this exploit, reek of a baiting attempt by certain users to see whether or not forum staff will actually act on profile offenses, and then the moment there actually is a response to the rule-breaking, it's time to head right towards the contestment thread. I had to infract another user in order to make it clear that we don't allow this type of abuse of the exploit, and in order to attempt to remain "fair", I did the same for you. I'm not open towards reversing or downgrading that certain other user's infraction, although I certainly am open to lowering yours to a warning. Please understand this, however - your receiving an infraction off the bat was an attempt on my part to not give you special treatment when compared to this other user, as I've admittedly talked and interacted with you a great deal more thanks to our Pokemon section. I just didn't want to seem biased with you by letting you off with a warning while someone else received an infraction.

C) The only proof was the screen shots. I could have easily photoshopped it, or messed with the HTML and gotten the same results. The fact that I didn't was because using the exploit for a second just seemed easier.

I suppose my answer to this is in the above two points. What I really want to get across from this, however, is that this exploit, even if it's allowed for now, shouldn't be abused in this manner, especially with official ranks, as that's been something we're strongly against from the start.

 

[Ganondork]

This infraction is singling out one member for something dozens of members have done and not even been warned about.

Dozens of members haven't been putting every single usergroup in their usertitle.

Do I think it's worthy of an infraction? No. I think it deserves a warning. And I would like to see some restrictions placed on the user ranks to prevent unprecedented things like this. I think that this is a precedence though.

While it is hearsay, I would kind of think that this is something that you could say, "Well common sense says that this is abuse." I can't go into the admin cp and tamper with someone's profile, even if it's something as minute as gender. There's no rule in place, and Locke didn't tell me not to do that, but it seems like common sense to me.

I think that a precedence like this deserves a warning, and it is in fact hearsay, common sense should also be used here.

 

[Batman]

A warning at most was warranted. If it breaks the rules to have an obnoxious amount of user badges, so be it, but a warning would have sufficed. Considering the ambiguity of the policy, Pancake should have been warned and that's it. To outright infract a member for his first offense (an offense that causes no real harm, it's just annoying to look at) is absolutely absurd. You might as well start infracting people with large sigs without a warning if you're going to be consistent. His infraction should be revoked as soon as possible.

 

[Ver-go-a-go-go]

I think that a precedence like this deserves a warning, and it is in fact hearsay, common sense should also be used here.

A warning at most was warranted. If it breaks the rules to have an obnoxious amount of user badges, so be it, but a warning would have sufficed. Considering the ambiguity of the policy, Pancake should have been warned and that's it. To outright infract a member for his first offense (an offense that causes no real harm, it's just annoying to look at) is absolutely absurd. You might as well start infracting people with large sigs without a warning if you're going to be consistent. His infraction should be revoked as soon as possible.

As I stated above, I'm certainly willing to entertain the possibility of devolving Pancake's infraction into a warning, although as Keith stated, I'm hoping to set a precedence here - since the exploit was first used, the main component of it that was seen as rule-breaking was using said exploit as a means to mimic other ranks that the forum officially uses, be it the Moderator, Hylian Knight, or Admin rank. I had hoped that the first incident there had been enough, and I honestly thought it had been up to this point - we lack official rules on this, something that irks me as much as you, but up to this point, these types of custom bars have been used for things outside of what the site sanctions. It wasn't until today that, once more, official ranks we replicated once more. And I should make this clear -Pancake was not the first to do this. It was in fact another user, as as he's already posted a blog about it, I'm sure everyone knows who it is. This excessive abuse of the exploit, combined with standard user profile offenses that have already been acted on, led to Mellow Ezlo's infraction.

Pancake's offense followed shortly after, where I saw that it was the exact same thing as Mellow's offense. I'm not willing to downgrade Mellow's infraction, as it was combined with his profile offense for the total of three points. Upon giving that infraction, I had to decide what to also do in Pancake's case. It's well-known that Pancake is actively involved in the Pokemon League that I maintain on this forum, and as such, I've talked with him much, much more than a majority of other members. It's also well known that Pancake and Mellow are friends, and interact on a very often basis. With these two factors in mind, my immediate response was to issue Pancake the same infraction, as to avoid appearing biased on my part for two reasons, chiefly the one outlined above in conjunction with the fact that we've gotten MANY reports of Pancake's that we deemed not serious enough to act on. In order to attempt to be "fair", and to avoid the natural inclination I have to let Pancake off the hook while another receives an infraction, I thought it was the most un-biased way to approach the situation.

But as I said, I'm perfectly willing to downgrade this into a warning - although I would hop my initial reason for doing this is already made clear, that we don't want official user-bars being mimicked. I really, REALLY hope we get official rules on this soon as I think it'll make so much more of this clear.

 

[(◕‿◕✿)]

New rule: When you decide to make something against the rules... actually tell people about it. Instead of expecting people to somehow just know because you "set a precedence" (which is a bad way to make a new rule to being with), actually update the rules so people know. And then start infracting people if they break the rule.

 

[A Link In Time]

I can see how this situation may have caused confusion, especially with ranks that have no username color attached to them, but the mods and administrative have yet to make an official statement on this exploit that has been around for months at this point. Just the other day, Sir Quaker stated the mods were looking to implement custom user ranks as a vBshop feature.

A warning is pushing the edge for this case as far as moderation goes, but since the mods have been so indecisive about voicing their thoughts on the matter in an official thread for months now, I think Pancake should not receive any penalty and a decision reached by the mods about custom rank as soon as possible and posted in the form of an announcement.

 

[Ver-go-a-go-go]

New rule: When you decide to make something against the rules... actually tell people about it. Instead of expecting people to somehow just know because you "set a precedence" (which is a bad way to make a new rule to being with), actually update the rules so people know. And then start infracting people if they break the rule.

I kind of wish I could do that. Just like I kind of wish that something would either be done about this exploit, or that we'd get some official word from a higher source on what is and isn't allowed. I took all we had to work with, which was the incident that occurred during the first use of the exploit, and attempted to work from there. I personally don't think we should allow official ranks to be replicated, especially on a such a large and unneeded scale. As I've set previously, I will definitely consider reversing specifically Pancake's case into a warning, although I do hope that, until we get clear rules on this topic, this can at least set some sort of boundary on something that we don't seemingly have boundaries on.

 

[Batman]

I'm pretty sure that something as simple as a blog announcement telling all users not to replicate site staff rank badges will do the trick.

I'm not sure what else Mellow did, but I'm pretty sure that Mellow's and Pancake's endeavor to give themselves all the rank badges was not out of malicious intent; they were just being silly with the exploit. A warning regarding this exploit would have sufficed for both. I know Pancake pretty well and I'm pretty sure that if you had warned him he would have complied without argument. What matters is Pancake's willingness to stop messing with the exploit in such a way, not that he get punished to warn others.

Instead of setting a precedent at someone else's expense (who didn't know any better), just make a simple announcement in a blog or in a thread or something telling all users to refrain from replicating site staff badges using the exploit. I'm positive the problem would evaporate. Most members don't have to be threatened to conform to a policy as simple as "don't be too silly or abusive with the exploit".

The members will listen to you.

 

[CynicalSquid]

Never mind. Forget it. It's not important. I should have just used common sense. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to cause this. :/

 

[LittleGumball]

Never mind. Forget it. It's not important. I should have just used common sense. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to cause this. :/

No it is important because you didn't deserve an infraction, you deserved a warning at most.

 

[Ganondork]

New rule: When you decide to make something against the rules... actually tell people about it. Instead of expecting people to somehow just know because you "set a precedence" (which is a bad way to make a new rule to being with), actually update the rules so people know. And then start infracting people if they break the rule.

Precedence is the only way smaller rules like this are established. The higher ups gave us the benefit of the doubt that it would not be abused, and multiple people have crossed the line, gone against any sort of common sense, and pretty clearly abused an exploit. The exploit is not a right, it's a privilege. I don't understand where this sense of entitlement has come from. Many places would ban any and all use of the exploit, but it's been allowed.

I'm pretty sure that Mellow's and Pancake's endeavor to give themselves all the rank badges was not out of malicious intent; they were just being silly with the exploit

I think you and I can agree that abuse isn't always done out of malicious intent. Abuse is abuse, though.

setting a precedent at someone else's expense (who didn't know any better)

We both know that common sense says, "Hmm, Kitsu got in a lot of trouble for abusing the exploit earlier, I probably shouldn't do something like that." They aren't innocent little victims by any margin.

---

I really don't like how this anti-mod attitude has sprung up recently. The mods used to be a lot stricter even a year or so ago. They've lessened up as they've established better relationships with members, but even that isn't enough for some reason. I think we should stop coddling people who were infracted, and instead look at the reasoning and understand that they aren't helpless victims.

I've heard a lot of people say things like, "Pancake gets away with so much!" for quite some time. Now he has gotten in trouble, and these same people are at his side, defending him? It bothers me, and I'd be lying if I said otherwise. I try my best to be fair, but this anti-mod attitude has gotten very vocal recently, and I don't particularly care for it.

 

[Ver-go-a-go-go]

I'm pretty sure that something as simple as a blog announcement telling all users not to replicate site staff rank badges will do the trick.

I'm not sure what else Mellow did, but I'm pretty sure that Mellow's and Pancake's endeavor to give themselves all the rank badges was not out of malicious intent; they were just being silly with the exploit. A warning regarding this exploit would have sufficed for both. I know Pancake pretty well and I'm pretty sure that if you had warned him he would have complied without argument. What matters is Pancake's willingness to stop messing with the exploit in such a way, not that he get punished to warn others.

Instead of setting a precedent at someone else's expense (who didn't know any better), just make a simple announcement in a blog or in a thread or something telling all users to refrain from replicating site staff badges using the exploit. I'm positive the problem would evaporate. Most members don't have to be threatened to conform to a policy as simple as "don't be too silly or abusive with the exploit".

The members will listen to you.

Indeed, I do believe that Pancake's intentions in and of themselves were not malicious, although the abuse of the system remains the same. Mellow Ezlo's intentions were not as clear, although I do believe that due to the profile customizations he presented in conjunction along with the custom banners (also other information that leads me to believe he was, indeed, "baiting" the forum staff to see if we would act on his offenses, making his intentions seem more malicious than they would have been) were indicative of something a bit worse than what Pancake presented. Abuse of the system is indeed abuse, and how else am I to get this across? I'm actually now, in retrospect, glad that Pancake initially received an infraction so that we could have this conversation. Had I given him a warning, I doubt much else would have been said. If nothing had been done, I believe the wrong choice would have been made, as there would be nothing to point towards in future events that lead others to believe that we do, in fact, not condone the usage of official rankings as exploit material.

And as I said pertaining to "updating" the rules, I honestly have no idea if it's within my jurisdiction to officially update the rules thread, or even make an announcement after the fact creating an official rule without first consulting the other members of the staff along with the Admin. Upon viewing the situation, I had to work with what I knew I could do, and that was to enforce the current rule we have about user profiles and how they're customized. I deemed Mellow Ezlo's customizations under our current rules to be unacceptable, and in turn had to do the same for Pancake in order to attempt to avoid the personal bias I have for him in his favor. We've lacked true leadership, or even just a statement, on how to deal with this kind of thing, and until I know if I can officially implement some sort of uniform policy on this that becomes the law of the land, I don't feel as if I could've done much more with this situation.

 

[CynicalSquid]

I wasn't trying to bait the staff or be anti mod. I was just initially in fear or a ban and felt I could reverse this. I do agree though that I should have used common sense though and should be punished.

 

[Ver-go-a-go-go]

Never mind. Forget it. It's not important. I should have just used common sense. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to cause this. :/

I'm actually incredibly thankful that you brought this up. This conversation needed to happen, as there was far too much ambiguity left to it during the status quo. As I said earlier, I'm definitely leaning towards you getting a warning while Mellow keeps his infraction. Hopefully, after all of this, we can all reach as a satisfying conclusion that brings some sort of order to a topic that hasn't seen much attention from the staff, something that's admittedly a huge blunder on our part.

 

[A Link In Time]

I really don't like how this anti-mod attitude has sprung up recently. The mods used to be a lot stricter even a year or so ago. They've lessened up as they've established better relationships with members, but even that isn't enough for some reason. I think we should stop coddling people who were infracted, and instead look at the reasoning and understand that they aren't helpless victims.

I've heard a lot of people say things like, "Pancake gets away with so much!" for quite some time. Now he has gotten in trouble, and these same people are at his side, defending him? It bothers me, and I'd be lying if I said otherwise. I try my best to be fair, but this anti-mod attitude has gotten very vocal recently, and I don't particularly care for it.

There is no argument that the current forum moderation is a lot more lenient and, in many ways, superior to that of the past few years, but that doesn't mean there aren't kinks that still need to be ironed out. This thread increases the transparency between mods and members by allowing members to directly state their grievances to moderators and receive opinions from everyone on the forum as well. There is no "anti-mod attitude." People often support what they believe is right without stooping to insults or mockery.